Your message dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:11:10 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line resolved
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linux-image-2.6-amd64
Version: 2.6.18+5
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system
I have installed debian using an amd64 etch installer which installs
a 2.6.17 kernel (2.6.17-2-amd64). The setup uses a 256mb boot partition,
and everything else on a software raid (fdisk output for both disks
pasted below). This all works without problem.
After upgrading the kernel to the debian packaged 2.6.18-7, the system
cannot read the partition table on /dev/sda. A failure to mount /boot
results in some error messages during boot, booting continues after
pressing CTRL-D, the root file system (software raid, /dev/md0) is
mounted fine, the /boot filesystem is not. Note, only the partition
table of /dev/sda cannot be read, the output of 'fdisk /dev/sdb' is
the same as when booted with 2.6.17.
fdisk output for /dev/sda with linux 2.6.18:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ico:~# fdisk /dev/sda
Device contains neither a valid DOS partition table, nor Sun, SGI or OSF
disklabel
Building a new DOS disklabel. Changes will remain in memory only,
until you decide to write them. After that, of course, the previous
content won't be recoverable.
The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 121576.
There is nothing wrong with that, but this is larger than 1024,
and could in certain setups cause problems with:
1) software that runs at boot time (e.g., old versions of LILO)
2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs
(e.g., DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK)
Warning: invalid flag 0x0000 of partition table 4 will be corrected by w(rite)
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/sda: 999.9 GB, 999999668224 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121576 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fdisk output with linux 2.6.16:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disk /dev/sda: 250.0 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 31 248976 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 32 274 1951897+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda3 275 30401 241995127+ fd Linux raid autodetect
Disk /dev/sdb: 250.0 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 1 31 248976 83 Linux
/dev/sdb2 32 274 1951897+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sdb3 275 30401 241995127+ fd Linux raid autodetect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-amd64
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages linux-image-2.6-amd64 depends on:
ii linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64 2.6.18-7 Linux 2.6.18 image on AMD64
linux-image-2.6-amd64 recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Turns out the 2.6.18 kernel includes support for the areca raid
controller (module arcmsr) installed in this system, whereas
2.6.17 doesn't.
For some reason the arcmsr driver seems to get loaded first, resulting
in reordered /dev/sd* devices. If I had done the initial install with
a 2.6.18 based installer, this presumably will not be a problem.
--- End Message ---
